Governing Brisbane 2032: Reframing Urban Impact Assessment Beyond Project-by-Project Approaches

With less than a decade remaining until the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, a critical urban policy question emerges: can existing project-based assessment systems adequately govern the cumulative, cross-scalar and long-term impacts of mega-event-led urban transformation? This article argues that Queensland’s dominant project-by-project assessment framework is not well suited to address metropolitan-scale sustainability pressures, distributive equity concerns, and enduring legacy obligations associated with the Games. Drawing on institutional theory and lessons from previous Olympic host cities and the Australian planning context, the article shows how fragmented approval processes obscure cumulative impacts, limit meaningful participation, and weaken post-event accountability. The persistence of these processes is read as a form of institutional isomorphism that minimises decision-making uncertainty rather than producing better outcomes, and is illustrated by the unfolding Brisbane Gabba venue saga, in which a single Olympic decision cycled through four scenarios in eighteen months. It reframes impact assessment as a public-interest urban policy instrument rather than a procedural compliance tool, and advocates for a programme-level, strategically coordinated approach. The paper proposes aligning existing mechanisms, particularly strategic assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and state-level coordinated project processes, within a tiered framework capable of integrating environmental, social and economic considerations across South East Queensland. By advancing a roadmap for Brisbane 2032, the article contributes to debates on mega-event governance and highlights the need to embed sustainability, equity, and legacy as core planning obligations rather than aspirational outcomes.